Reviews from the past: ‘Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle’

Roger Thomas has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. The following is a review that first appeared on Ethicsdaily.com. Other reviews will run daily.

Alex Munday (Lucy Liu), Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz) and Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore) gave it a go the second time around in the sequel to the first “Charlie’s Angels” film that came out in 2000.

For anyone who remembers the television series “Charlie’s Angels,” seeing the latest “Angels” film version will leave them nostalgic for something that was both smarter and simpler.

The original angels used their brains far more often than they used their athletic or fighting skills. They were smart, capable professional women who just happened to be gorgeous. Such is not the case in the updated film versions of the original series.

In fact, there are only really three things in the new film, besides the title, which even remind one of the old series: John Forsythe still voices the never seen Charlie; the angels have a male assistant named Bosley (in this film he is played by the third actor to take on this role, Bernie Mac); and Jacklyn Smith has a brief cameo playing the original angel Kelly Garrett. (“Charlie’s Angels” trivia fans will know that Smith is the only actress to play an angel for the full five years of the series.)

There are several glaring weaknesses in the new film. From the opening sequence, the audience realizes that the angels are not human, but are rather superheroes. Neither “Spider-Man,” the “Hulk” nor all the “X-Men” combined could out survive this trio. There is no real sense of suspense in the film because one knows the angels will survive every Matrix-style fight in which they are involved.

Second, it is difficult to determine whether the angels are unintelligent or are just pretending to be dense. In one scene, they are connecting clues in ways that only a screenwriter could dream up. In the very next scene, these same girls seem ignorant of the world around them. As stated above, the original angels were always portrayed as intelligent.

Perhaps the original angels were smart about capturing criminals because they all “went to the police academy.” The third weakness of this film is the back-story on these angels. As fans will remember, the original angels all wanted to be cops and help save the world, but they were rather assigned very un-“hazardous duty.”

The implication was that they were capable of more than the duties they were offered; someone underestimated them because they were beautiful women. So they found a boss who would respect their gifts. This is not the back-story of the film version angels. Their histories do not make any sort of statement; their stories are just silly.

The original angels had a glamorous beauty about them. The film angels were most likely cast to appeal to teenage boys. These angels do not come close to their original counterparts. The film angels have to use a great deal of suggestive language to make up for the fact that they do not have the visual beauty and intelligence that kept men and women tuning in every week to see the angels at work.

The old series was not television’s finest hour, but many of the plots were very intriguing. The plot of the new film is a convoluted mess with logistical holes big enough through which to fly a helicopter. (One angel actually does fly a helicopter during the most cartoonish action sequence of the film.)

The “Angels” movies, having little akin with the television series upon which they are based, probably owe a good bit to the current James Bond movies. Both films offer unbelievable stunts. Both offer lots of sexual innuendo. Both series filmmakers have decided to focus more on spectacular effects than on story. Both series end up leaving real movie fans dissatisfied.

The first “Charlie’s Angels” film was far from a masterpiece. The idea was a good one, but the film went too far with effects and laughs.

If the first film went too far, then the new one went over the edge. The film series might could be saved if the filmmakers toned down the next film and re-captured the charm of the original series.

Perhaps a good working title for the third film could be “Charlie’s Angels: Coasting.”

Box Office results

Domestic Total Gross: $100,830,111

Foreign Total Gross: $158,345,677

Production budget: $120 million

Opening Weekend: $37,634,211

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

‘Purge’ another night of horrific chaos

It’s a struggle just to stay alive for Eva Sanchez (Carmen Ejogo), right, and others on a night when murder and other crimes are legal. (Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures)

I liked the original “The Purge” very much. In fact, I liked it so much that I placed it on my top five list for the first half of 2013.

I thought the story was well constructed. The characters were developed and compelling.  But most of all, I liked the social commentary the film was promoting. Make no mistake, “The Purge” was more than your average suspense-horror film. I add the word horror because though the film does not have any supernatural elements, the things humanity does to one another in the first “Purge” film are increasingly horrific.

One year later, the filmmakers are back with “The Purge: Anarchy,” and the new film improves on the original in several ways.

The original focused basically on one family inside their home, and those who sought to harm them during the night of the Purge. An intriguing setup that worked well but seems simple and small in many ways.

The new film takes place in the middle of a major city. Instead of one family, there are three groups of people who end up facing the perils of the Purge in the streets and alleyways of the city. As expected, these three groups eventually find one another, but whether they can trust each other remains to be discovered. This setting and the events that happen to these five people make this film seem more epic than the first.

Another strength are the villains in this film, and there were three or four of these groups – depending on how one counts them – and all had varied agendas. Each expands the viewer’s understanding of what happens on the night of the Purge.

This film also builds on the history and information about the Purge that began in the first film. It is easy to dismiss these stories because the United States would never pass laws as depicted in the film. However, in spite of the exaggeration, there are glimmers of truth in this fictional ritual of murder and mayhem.

One class looking on another class with disdain would never happen to the extent of the auction scene and what follows in the “Purge” sequel. On the other hand, we do seem to spend a great deal of time debating whether anyone is entitled to anything, clean water, food, a vote, and the list goes on.

Finally, I liked the conclusion of this film. I will not give anything away, except to say, in all the carnage on the night of the Purge, there are those who hold fast to their humanity and compassion, and these traits serve them well.

One word of caution to those who watched and enjoyed the first “Purge” film: The second installment of this series is much more violent than that first, and the use of profane words from the characters vastly increases. I watched the first “Purge” again, before I saw the second film, so I was very familiar with the content of the original. Even if one saw the first and were not offended, the second film might be offensive.

As for me, looking beyond the excesses, I found this new film to be equal to or in some ways better than the original. So, if you are not easily offended by mature content, and you liked the first film, you will probably find “The Purge: Anarchy” to be a film you will enjoy and reflect on days after you exit the theater.

I wonder if there are plans for another film. Will a resistance rise and attempt to bring down a government that sanctions a night of slaughter called The Purge? If they make that film, I will certainly be curious to see it.

July 24 Cinema Corner page

Reviews by Roger Thomas. Page design by Jason O. Boyd, The Stanly News & Press

DVD review: ‘Snowpiercer’ a good Sci-Fi ride

Curtis (Chris Evans) joins the others in a fight to stay alive on a train set apart by a class system. (Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Company)

If one finds almost any information about “Snowpiercer,” it is all positive. The film has become a new gold standard for Sci-Fi films.

In some markets the ticket sales are keeping in pace with the latest “Transformers.” As far as the quality of story, “Snowpiercer” certainly outruns the giant robots feuding.

“Snowpiercer” tells a simple story. Almost all of the human population is dead because of a man-made second ice age. Those who remain now live a fast-moving train that has been the salvation for mankind for 18 years.

Aboard this train are classes of people. The poorest ones live in the back end of the train, where they are given black nutrition bars once a day and are punished severely if they protest their lot in life. The climate outside may be below freezing but the climate among the poor is starting to boil.

A great deal of the second half of the film reveals the lifestyles of the more wealthy residents who populate the part of the train nearer to the engine. The discovery of each new car will not be revealed here. The journey through those cars should be experienced on screen.

In the midst of all the social commentary that defines this tale, there is a captivating mystery. Early on, two small boys are taken from the train car of the poorest residents.  The mystery is where are the boys and why were they taken. The answer is just one of the twists and turns that makes this story more intriguing.

I view “Snowpiercer” as a fable. In many ways it has a lot in common with the very successful “Hunger Games” series. “Snowpiercer” will not be as successful as “Games.”  It is an R-rated film for violence. It also does not set up things for a sequel. But it shares many of the ideas of “Games,” especially in the depictions of the haves and have-nots.

I liked much of the film. There is not a moment or scene that is not interesting in its own way. The train, is a fascinating place. A viewer of the film is as surprised as the characters at what is through the next door and into the next cabin.

Snowpiercer looks great with fine performances and skilled work by the filmmakers.  Chris Evans (“Captain America”) plays the main role, Curtis, who is the leader of the poor. Ed Harris, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer and Jamie Bell are also prominent players. All the actors give remarkable performances. The art direction, set design, cinematography, visual effects and choreography of action sequences all contribute to the visual tapestry that clarifies this story.   

There are many gaps in the story that make it hard for me to grasp the film as a serious drama. I left the film thinking of questions that I really should not raise if I was completely caught up in this struggle for survival. Once I embraced it as a fable, a story with a moral, I became much more comfortable when certain parts of the film were not adequately explained.

As a fable, the moral is simple. Human beings, at least in most parts of the world, have expectations. The downtrodden can be suppressed, but only for a while. As a nation and a global community we constantly ask ourselves, how much is too much or too little to provide for the least fortunate?

In “Snowpiercer” too little is a black block of nutrition (made from a horrid source) and the threat that those nearer to the front of the train may change the rules at any moment.  As politicians vote often for less and less assistance or more and more discriminating rules, should we worry about the back of the train? Or is that just a fable?

“Snowpiercer” is not a perfect film, but it is a good ride and a thoughtful fable no matter what your politics might be.